- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Orleans City Council Passes Smoking Ban
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:40 pm to Tiger in NY
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:40 pm to Tiger in NY
I said:
But that's a retarded concept.
quote:
And yeah I am against any law that prevents a private owner from doing anything that is legal on their property.
But that's a retarded concept.
0
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:40 pm to rlebl39
You said nothing about "LEGAL". Wanna re-read your whole post?
quote:
We can agree on that. From the non smokers perspective it is going to be nice to not smell like smoke the next day, and I'll like that. What I do not like is government forcing rules on private owners. Look beyond just smoking, if the government can do this to smoking, they can do it to anything. ETA: Also the next rule (whatever it may be) might not just be in businesses, it could be in private residences.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:42 pm to rlebl39
quote:
You compared smoking cigarettes to fricking a donkey....
Ahh, so we are drawing a line there. Good to know, because you previously said you didn't like government forcing rules on private owners
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:42 pm to Tiger in NY
And you assumed he meant illegal activities? Obviously that's retarded.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:43 pm to junkfunky
I love TD
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:43 pm to Tiger in NY
Why the frick would you assume I meant illegal activities. 
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:43 pm to junkfunky
junky...in other posts he indicated that he didn't like any rules.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:47 pm to Tiger in NY
Yes I am drawing a line at previously illegal activities.
Now in your hypothetical if fricking animals was to become legal in this country, then by all means a private business owner that wanted to have a donkey show should be allowed to. i wouldn't agree with it or want anything to do with it. But the owner wouldn't be doing anything illegal.
Now in your hypothetical if fricking animals was to become legal in this country, then by all means a private business owner that wanted to have a donkey show should be allowed to. i wouldn't agree with it or want anything to do with it. But the owner wouldn't be doing anything illegal.
This post was edited on 1/22/15 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:51 pm to rlebl39
quote:
Uhhhh care to explain how it isn't?
Ok. I'm no lawyer, but I'll give it a shot.
The central argument here is that disallowing a person to smoke inside a business infringes upon that person's right to live his life as he sees fit.
While it may be true that it is an infringement for the smoking public, isn't it also an infringement on the liberties of non-smokers who choose to live a smoke-free life to be subjected to others' smoke?
The argument against this is often, "well don't go to bars that allow smoking." Again, isn't this infringing on the rights of non-smoker patrons who want to go in but can't? Furthermore, the rights of the employees of those establishments who choose not to smoke are infringed by being forced to breathe smoke-laden air as a condition of employment.
Don't argue that disallowing smoking is an infringement of civil liberties of smokers when the very act of smoking is an infringement upon the liberties of others.
This post was edited on 1/22/15 at 5:56 pm
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:54 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
The central argument here is that disallowing a person to smoke inside a business infringes upon that person's right to live his life as he sees fit.
That's not the argument.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:56 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
The central argument here is that disallowing a person to smoke inside a business infringes upon that person's right to live his life as he sees fit.
The central argument it that the business should decided and live/die by their decision.
Not be killed by a government.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:57 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
That's not the argument.
Then what's the argument? Are people against governments forcing businesses to comply with what amounts to a health code item?
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:57 pm to Winkface
god dammit this is bullshite!!!
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:58 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
Are people against governments forcing businesses to comply with what amounts to a health code item?
What makes cigarette smoke worse than a fart? Volume?
Worse than Ozone?
It is a special interest and honestly has little to do with health or they would ban it on city streets.
This post was edited on 1/22/15 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:59 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
Then what's the argument? Are people against governments forcing businesses to comply
Yes.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 5:59 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Not be killed by a government.
So let me get this straight. You're saying you believe that bars and restaurants throughout New Orleans will be forced to close their doors because people will stop going to them?
You really believe swaths of people are going to just stop going out because of this one ordinance?
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:00 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
So let me get this straight. You're saying you believe that bars and restaurants throughout New Orleans will be forced to close their doors because people will stop going to them?
If they lose a dollar it is a shame.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:02 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
It is a special interest and honestly has little to do with health or they would ban it on city streets.
I'm not going to get into the "cigarettes aren't actually linked to cancer" debate with you.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:03 pm to Guava Jelly
That's seems to be what people think. Even though someone else posted that when NYC did this years ago they actually saw a surge of business due to all the nonsmokers returning to the bars.
I remember when this was up for a vote here in PHX/Scottsdale. People on the news making the same arguments and freaking out over business dropping, etc. etc. Businesses adjusted and were just fine. Hell...many times when you go to the bars/clubs here one of the best places to be is the smoking patio areas...they have them set up so nicely now to attract more people and to accommodate smokers.
I remember when this was up for a vote here in PHX/Scottsdale. People on the news making the same arguments and freaking out over business dropping, etc. etc. Businesses adjusted and were just fine. Hell...many times when you go to the bars/clubs here one of the best places to be is the smoking patio areas...they have them set up so nicely now to attract more people and to accommodate smokers.
This post was edited on 1/22/15 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:04 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
The argument against this is often, "well don't go to bars that allow smoking." Again, isn't this infringing on the rights of non-smoker patrons who want to go in but can't? Furthermore, the rights of the employees of those establishments who choose not to smoke are infringed by being forced to breathe smoke-laden air as a condition of employment.
I guess you don't change the channel on the tv when you come to a program you don't like/find disturbing.
You say the person "can't" go in. Nothing is physically stopping them. They don't choose to go in because of the conditions inside. There is a huge difference.
Page 34 of 63
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News